Thank you for arguing: NOT.

A falling leaf that resembles a needed change

Which way can truly be the right way when arguing? Most would say that however they argue is truly the best tactic. Although plenty have flaws that prove they’re not where they need to be in their argument. In the assigned chapters from Thank you for arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can teach us about the art of persuasion by Heinrichs, J. (2013), common fallacies are pointed out and the inefficient ways of arguing are questioned.

The chapters went into detail about the seven fallacies and their roles in improper argument. Explaining why False Compromises, Bad Examples, Ignorant Proof, Tautology, False Choices, Red Herring, and Wrong Endings are “Deadly Sins” to any argument. Heinrich’s described the younger portion of his life to point out old tactics that would turn any argument into a fight. The distinction on these fallacies have made any flaws in an argument more noticeable and easier to call out. He goes on to display some fouls in arguments by not arguing the inarguable and using humility of your counterpart in the argument. Heinrich continues this by then discussing how rhetoric can help us out of political controversy. He does this by pointing out founders to rhetoric and how their old ways need a revision to fit into the new age of multimedia platforms for rhetoric.

Previous to reading these chapters, I only had the vague concept of the Logical Fallacies. Essentially being able to tell when someone’s argument wasn’t credible, but I was not able to use call out the specific term of what the opponent was specifically riding on. After these chapters I gained more knowledge of the differences between the logical fallacies as well as test my skills by detecting the different fallacies in the posted examples that contained the terms listed in the chapters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *